Dyson v. St. Paul National Bank
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Ramsey county against James Johnston and John Howe, copartners, to recover $911.22 for work and labor performed. On October 14, 1895, summons in garnishment was served upon the St. Paul National Bank. After disclosure of the garnishee had been taken, the bank was made a party to the action and directed to answer the supplemental complaint against it.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Ramsey county against James Johnston and John Howe, copartners, to recover $911.22 for work and labor performed. On October 14, 1895, summons in garnishment was served upon the St. Paul National Bank. After disclosure of the garnishee had been taken, the bank was made a party to the action and directed to answer the supplemental complaint against it. Service of the summons upon the original defendants was made by publication, and judgment by default was entered against them and docketed prior to the trial. The case was tried before Bunn, J., without a jury,…
1Opinion of the Court
START, c. J.
The respondent herein, the St. Paul National Bank, was summoned as garnishee, the plaintiff claiming that it had money and other property in its hands and under its control belonging to the principal defendants. It appeared and made disclosure, in which it denied the plaintiff’s claim; and thereupon a supplemental complaint against it was filed, to which it made answer.
The case was tried by the court without a jury, resulting in findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the respondent; and the plaintiff appealed from an order denying his motion for a. new trial.
The…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Union Bank of Chicago v. Kansas City BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Warner v. LittlefieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Mackellar v. PillsburySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- May v. TenneySupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Bannon v. BowlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Matchan v. Phoenix Land Investment Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Crookston State Bank v. LeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Engenmoen v. LutroeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Imperial Elevator Co. v. BennettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Nelson v. PossSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927